Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Osipi said:
Actually when Philip married Princess Elizabeth, he became HRH The Duke of Edinburgh by her father George VI. He did not become HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh until Queen Elizabeth II endowed him with that title in 1957. It is not automatic that one becomes a prince or princess of the UK in their own right by marrying a sovereign.

That is by marrying a male monarch.

Duke-of-Earl said:
Thanks for the link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe The Letters Patent of 1917 were completely personal to George V. His grandchildren would be Princes and Princesses throughout his lifetime and theirs, as is the case now. His great affection of the Princess Elizabeth was obvious. He probable felt that he would never see female line great grandchildren. He was correcting the orders of QV, who basically made everyone she was related to, or would make all of her decendents Princes or Princesses no matter how far they would now be from the sovereign.
 
It is officially announced that, in accordance with the settled general rule that a wife takes the status of her husband, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon on her marriage has become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York, with the status of a Princess.
Times of April 28, 1923
I did not say that Queen Mum was not a princess at all. I wanted to emphasize here the difference between a princess by birth and in her own right (and style) and a princess by marriage only, who takes her status, title and style from her husband (and in the UK is even styled a Princess plus her husband's name). The first one was, for example, Queen Mary, born Princess Mary of Teck, and the second one (and first in history since Catherine Parr, the sixth and final wife of Henry VIII) was Queen Mum, born a commoner styled Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was a Princess of the UK by marriage styled as The Princess Albert not Princess Elizabeth but under her daughter's will and according to old customs, she was styled like that at her funeral. It was because, first, her precedessors were all styled like that and second, her sisters-in law (except the Duchess of Windsor) were given the personal princely style by EII too.

I believe The Letters Patent of 1917 were completely personal to George V. His grandchildren would be Princes and Princesses throughout his lifetime and theirs, as is the case now. His great affection of the Princess Elizabeth was obvious. He probable felt that he would never see female line great grandchildren. He was correcting the orders of QV, who basically made everyone she was related to, or would make all of her decendents Princes or Princesses no matter how far they would now be from the sovereign.
Before the Letters Patent of 1917, male-line great-grandchildren of a Sovereign were also Princes and Princesses of the UK by birth but with the lesser style of Highness. Thus, the only child of Prince Arthur of Connaught, a grandson of Victoria through her son Arthur, Duke of Connaught, Alastair, was styled His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught since his birth until the said Letters Patent of 1917 stripped him of that status and he become a commoner by law known as Earl of Macduff. Actually, he was the only member of the immediate Royal Family who was affected this way by George V's changes. Of course, there were the Hanoverian royal relatives of the King, far more descended in male-line from George III than Alastair was from Victoria, who were recognised with their titles of Princes and Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland (not the UK) by the King several years before he revoked it all by limiting the princely titles and status in his Letters Patent of 1917.
Until 1917 additionally male-line great-grandchildren were British princes and princesses by birth, so it's not like you said that Victoria wanted everyone descended from her to be British princes and princesses. It's true she was elevating her relatives in their styles, like her Battenberg female-line grandchildren, who were raised in the UK from their German Serne Highness to Highness, but they were never considered Princes of Blood Royal of the UK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was under the impression from other questions I have asked that once a person is married to the monarch they gain royal status in their own right. So then they are a princess of the united kingdom.

A man cannot take the status of his wife in the UK. In Philip's case, George VI created him a Royal Highness the day before his wedding to The Princess Elizabeth, and The Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich the next morning. At that point, Philip was a Duke of the Realm with royal rank in his own right when he married the future Queen.

In 1957, The Queen formally issued Letters Patent creating Philip a Prince of the UK in his own right with the style of "The Prince Philip".

A woman does automatically take the status of her husband upon marriage. As we saw in 1936 when Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, but suggested she take a lesser style and title other than Queen, to make it more acceptable.

The Government and the Dominions agreed the wife of The King is automatically Queen in her own right and no other style or title applies. Since they refused to introduce legislation allowing The King to marry her morganatically, he abdicated the throne.
 
Last edited:
The Queen issued Letters Patent dated August 21st, 1996 which regulated royal style & titles after divorce. As such, the Princess of Wales & the Duchess of York, lost the style and prefix of Royal Highness.

Since Diana was legally no longer a Royal Highness, if she had lived, would she have been required to curtsy to her daughter in law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
 
Since Diana was legally no longer a Royal Highness, if she had lived, would she have been required to curtsy to her daughter in law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
In all probability, she wouldn't have to. Despite the divorce and the loss of the style of Royal Highness, the Queen made sure Diana (as mother of the future King) was still accorded the same precedence and ranking she had during her marriage to Prince Charles - meaning she was the third lady in the Kingdom after the Queen and the Queen Mother.

Now, had Diana lived, she would have certainly had lower precedence than Camilla (the current wife of the Prince of Wales) but it is likely the Queen would have still accorded her a precedence above that of William and Harry's wives.

I think it would have largely depended on how well Diana's relationship with the Royal Family would be (and there were signs of improvement at the time of her death, at least in regards to Prince Charles), or how popular she remained (and her popularity was on the decline before her death; most articles on Diana immediately preceding her death were highly critical). If she maintained good, cordial relations with the Queen and Prince Charles, I daresay her precedence wouldn't have changed (meaning right now it would be The Queen -> The Duchess of Cornwall -> Diana, Princess of Wales -> The Countess of Wessex -> The Duchess of Cambridge). However, if she became a controversial figure due to her lifestyle or other issues, she would have most probably lost her precedence, mother of the future King or not. Likewise, had Diana re-married, I'm almost certain she would have been accorded a much lower precedence (certainly below Sophie and probably Kate too), or would have none at all.

Of course, this is just speculation on my part' no one can predict how things would have been had Diana lived.
 
Last edited:
The Queen issued Letters Patent dated August 21st, 1996 which regulated royal style & titles after divorce. As such, the Princess of Wales & the Duchess of York, lost the style and prefix of Royal Highness.

Since Diana was legally no longer a Royal Highness, if she had lived, would she have been required to curtsy to her daughter in law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?

Wise, Elizabeth. :) People may have wanted more for Di - but when you think about this in general it makes perfect sense. Without this, when people re-marry, there is a real mess.

EDIT: Having just read Artemisia's post below - I get that being the boy's MOM counted for something, but still give Elizabeth credit because it is easier to make an exception, than to take something back when an engagement, death, birth of other children, etc. happens.
 
Last edited:
Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

The link above has the Letters Patent regarding former wives and below is the announcement as it appeared in the Gazette for anyone thats interested

Buckingham Palace
The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 21st August 1996, to declare that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness.

(London Gazette, issue 54510, Aug 30, 1996, p. 1/11603.)
 
Most accounts have stated The Queen was willing to allow Diana to remain HRH after the divorce, but Diana decided to relinquish it in favor of a larger financial settlement and the freedom to live her life without constant oversight from the Palace. Others have stated Diana refused to settle for "HRH Princess Diana" and demanded to be "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales", which is technically the style of the wife of The Prince of Wales, and was declined by The Queen.

Either way, she did remain a Princess, although downgraded by the loss of her royal rank.
 
From what I've read, the Queen is all about continuity & tradition. Is there any particular reason why Prince Michael of Kent was never granted a peerage on marriage, other than being the youngest son of King George V's youngest son?

I'm sure The Queen wasn't to thrilled with him marrying a Catholic. Could this be the reason?
 
I think the reason he has no peerage is because he is the younger son, he was never expected to undertake any official engagements, and there simply was never a reason to give him a peerage when he married. She also never gave Prince Richard of Gloucester a peerage when he married. Richard was a younger son expected to continue with his private career as an architect and not undertake royal engagements. Also in both cases their children would not be princes needing a terratorial designation but would be using the Windsor surname.
 
The idea of creating a female heir "Princess of Wales" in her own right was discussed when The Queen turned 18. George VI declined to consider it, stating the title was for the wife of The Prince of Wales and pointing out a female heir would still take the style and title of her husband upon marriage.

But was the Queen ever known as the Duchess of Edinburgh before she became Queen? I thought she was always called Princess Elizabeth, even after she was married.
 
But was the Queen ever known as the Duchess of Edinburgh before she became Queen? I thought she was always called Princess Elizabeth, even after she was married.
The Queen was indeed called the Duchess of Edinburgh until she ascended to the Throne.
For instance, when the birth of Prince Charles was announced, she was called "Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh" - the standard form of address of the Princess Elizabeth from the point of her marriage to the Duke of Edinburgh and until her accession to the Throne.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/a-prince-is-bornhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/princesselizabeth/6608.shtml
 
...The Government and the Dominions agreed the wife of The King is automatically Queen in her own right and no other style or title applies.
Doesn't that mean then that Camilla cannot use the title Princess Consort when Charles becomes King?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As the situation currently exists Camilla will be Queen because to do anything else means establishing the concept of Morganatic marriage in the UK and that will take legislation.

Now - whether she is known as Queen Camilla or Princess Camilla is a different point - she can use any title she likes but that doesn't mean she won't be The Queen.
 
Doesn't that mean then that Camilla cannot use the title Princess Consort when Charles becomes King?
That's the understanding as things are right now.
Regardless of how Camilla is referred to she will legally be the Queen Consort.

One loophole I see (if they are hell bent for Camilla to be styled as The Princess Consort while legally remaining the Queen Consort) is for King Charles to make Camilla The Princess Consort in her own right. In that case, Camilla will legally have both titles and can choose to be known under the lesser of the two, rather like she is known under the lesser of her two titles right now. In that case, she should be referred to as The Queen Consort on all official (state) events but can probably be addressed to as The Princess Consort on more private or semi-official ones.

If, however, the title of The Princess Consort isn't granted to Camilla in her own right, she will have as much right to call herself one as I can call myself Queen of Armenia - none.


This whole mess could have been avoided if they hadn't made the ridiculous Princess Consort announcement in the first place; I understand the reasoning behind it but really!
 
As the situation currently exists Camilla will be Queen because to do anything else means establishing the concept of Morganatic marriage in the UK and that will take legislation.

Now - whether she is known as Queen Camilla or Princess Camilla is a different point - she can use any title she likes but that doesn't mean she won't be The Queen.

Apart from the concept of morganatic marriage not existing in Britain, they can't go via that rout any more; by being accepted as The Princess of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, etc, Camilla has already been established as non-morganatic (equal) wife of the Prince of Wales.

As for Camilla using any title she likes - she can only use those titles she will legally have. As wife of the King, she will automatically be Queen Consort. But she will not be Princess Consort and cannot just use the style out of blue. In order for Camilla to have the right to the title, she will have to be created The Princess Consort in her own right, enabling her to use the lesser of her two titles whenever needed.
 
For her not to use the title Queen they do have to pass legislation to make the marriage unequal and as Charles won't have the title 'Prince' she will also cease to have the style 'Princess'. As a result she will have to move up to the style of Queen but the intention is that she won't do that.

A woman takes her husbands titles and styles and Chalrles will no longer be a "Prince" so Camilla will cease to be a "Princess". That leaves her with a couple of options - take the style Queen Camilla, revert to Camilla Parker-Bowles, revert to Camilla Shand.

To give her the title Princess Consort the marriage will have to be declared morganatic and that will take parliament to pass legislation to strip her of the title The Queen and that will then be the case. The fact that they didn't do in 2005 only complicates the situation but they can still do that in the future.
 
I don't see how giving Camilla the title of The Princess Consort in her own right will make the marriage morganatic. As wife of the King, Camilla will be Queen Consort but, having the title of the Princess Consort in her own right, she will have the use of both titles and can choose to be known under her second-highest one. Being known as the Duchess of Cornwall didn't turn the marriage into a morganatic one, did it?

A woman takes her husband's titles and styles but that doesn't mean she loses the ones she has in her own right (although they are rarely used after marriage). Princess Alexandra didn't stop being a Princess after marrying Angus Ogilvy. Another very, very rough example (and yes, I know the circumstances are very different): when Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna married Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, she immediately took her husbands styles and titles and became HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh. However, she also maintained the style she was hers in her own right - Imperial Highness. What I mean to say with this example, if Camilla is created a Princess Consort in her own right, she will remain one regardless of the fact Charles will cease to be a Prince the moment he ascends to the Throne.

Of course, legally Camilla will be The Queen Consort unless Acts of Parliament in the UK and other countries of the Realm are passed - and I don't see that happening.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must say, I think a great deal of people isn't looking forward to the day when the world will have to deal with Camilla's title once Charles come to the throne. Of course Camilla will be Queen Consort when Charles become King. As she is legally HRH The Princess of Wales.

I totally respect her with to only be called HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. I think it's a title that fits her and she has worked very hard on representing The Queen, Britian and Commonwealth under that name. I think if she wishes be titled HRH The Princess Consort when Charles comes to the throne, I think her wish should be respected and granted. Then again, if she and Charles decided she should be called Her Majesty The Queen, then I will respect that too.

I'm just not looking forward to that future debate. I think it's going to be a palace PR mess when the time comes.
 
I think both Charles, Camilla, the royal family and palace officials knows it.
 
The fact is....when Charles becomes King, she becomes Queen. It's just the way it is.
Whether she deserves the title or not is irrelevant, she is who she is.
 
For her not to use the title Queen they do have to pass legislation to make the marriage unequal and as Charles won't have the title 'Prince' she will also cease to have the style 'Princess'. As a result she will have to move up to the style of Queen but the intention is that she won't do that.

People in the United Kingdom have the right to call themselves whatever they wish, so I'd think all she has to do to not use the title Queen is choose not to use it. I think in theory anybody could ask to be called "HRH the Princess Consort" and it would be perfectly legal.
 
Last edited:
:previous:
What about the other Realms though?
It would have been rather strange to be known as The Princess Consort in one realm and The Queen Consort - in fifteen others.
 
:previous:

Take Australia for example. AFAIK the only have an (Australian) title for the souverain - which in case of a king is hared by his wife as Queen Consort of Australia. But they don't have Australian titles for the Royal family, they use their British titles as courtesy titles and award them honours as family and representatives of their souverain.

What if Camilla decides to be known not as queen? Then the Australians have a title for her she doesn't want to use, so they have to use her British title as courtesy instead? Wouldn't that be an insult to the Australian nation? That the wife of their king does not want to become their queen but opts instead for a British title? IMHO better to avoid such potential anger in Australia...
 
Thought about is some more:
if the Queen really did not want Camilla to become queen, she would create her a princess in her own right as "The Princess Camilla", just like she created Philip a Prince of the Uk. Only then Camilla had the choice of titles after her husband's ascension. With this HMe would surely force Charles' hand as she would give the public a clear understanding of her wishes - a lot of media outlets would have arguments for their outcry about "Queen Camilla".

OTOH the fact that nothing besides the publishing of this "intention" ever happened is a clear sign that the queen does not want Charles' reign to be any different from that of his ancestors. IMHO, of course.
 
It has already been clearly established by the precedents in 1936 with Edward VIII that the wife of The King is automatically Queen and no other title or style applies.

In order for Camilla to be styled "HRH The Princess Consort", a title she is not entitled to hold as the wife of The Sovereign, legislation would have to be passed in Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth nations that she will not hold the title and rank of Queen.

I think there is zero chance any future Parliament would agree to pass legislation consenting to this, so Camilla will indeed be "HM The Queen" when her husband becomes King.
 
Wasn't it agreed on with The Queen and Parliament that Camilla has chosen to take up the title HRH The Princess Consort when Charles comes to the throne?

On the list of Facts on The Prince of Wales website it says:
"As was explained at the time of their wedding in April 2005, it is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne."

The samething is stated on the official Monarchy website.
 
People in the United Kingdom have the right to call themselves whatever they wish, so I'd think all she has to do to not use the title Queen is choose not to use it. I think in theory anybody could ask to be called "HRH the Princess Consort" and it would be perfectly legal.

Except that she cannot just start using a title or style that (a) doesn't exist and has to be created by The Sovereign with Letters Patent; (b) is not held by her husband, The King, and creates a morganatic marriage since she would not hold equal rank as Her Majesty The Queen.

If they really want to prepare for the future, The Queen should issue Letters Patent now creating Camilla a Princess of the UK in her own right with the style of "HRH The Princess Camilla".

At that point, she would hold her own title and style and when the time comes, Parliament could simply assent (assuming the Crown Commonwealth agrees as well) that she would continue to hold her current title and not use the rank and style of Queen Consort. Charles could then simply announce his wife would hold precedence and place next to The Sovereign.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom